Would you play a new infinity style RPG?

[villain of the story]

Welcome to elementary.

 

[mondblut]

Not really. I haven't played half the existing IE RPGs, for fuck's sake.

Now, make it "TOEE style RPG", and you get my attention...

 

[GarfunkeL]

Probably would. Though please make it fully turn-based instead of RTwP-abomination.

 

[Goliath]

1. Game is on the PC
2. Character Stats
3. Skills based off of character stats
4. Combat that relies solely on skills and character stats
5. Meaningful (and story effecting) Choice and Consequences
6. An interesting and compelling story and setting

 

[ghostdog]

Still looking forward to Broken Vaporglass.

A year ago I had info that the development was picked up again. Unfortunately it seems dead now.

 

[Linkamus]

Probably would. Though please make it fully turn-based instead of RTwP-abomination.

Sorry it will be RTwP

 

[Jack]

Sorry it will be RTwP

I'd play such a game, but not buy it, if it didn't have spectacular writing or similar qualities that is.

 

[Fowyr]

Because we REALLY must have another game with shitty RTwP.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Probably would. Though please make it fully turn-based instead of RTwP-abomination.

Sorry it will be RTwP

What are going to be the strong sides of its combat system?

RTwP i pretty hard to do right.

 

[Linkamus]

Probably would. Though please make it fully turn-based instead of RTwP-abomination.

Sorry it will be RTwP

What are going to be the strong sides of its combat system?

RTwP i pretty hard to do right.

Well as I said it will be highly influenced by the baldur's gate 1&2, so the combat will be mostly tactical. Fights will be very well scripted.. Lots of AI action conditions. There will absolutely be NO level scaling. My philosophy concerning RPG Combat is that Level-Scaling should never ever be necessary if encounters are scripted correctly, and player skills and abilities are designed correctly. Yes some fights should be too hard for the player level, and some fights should be too easy for the player level, but I think some fights, especially main story-line fights should be challenging but beatable at a wide-variety of player levels. This ensures that should the player decide to be a completionist and decide to do every single side quest and dungeon possible before completing the game, the main story will still provide a challenge. On the flip side if a player does almost no side quests, while the main story will be more difficult to complete, it is not impossible.

Sorry if I haven't answered your question the way you wanted.. I kind of got on a different tangent.

 

[mangsy]

Why not.
Pure top down (with the view on top of character's heads) not very pretty, though. Better make it like this.

Aww

I Exile. I remember getting it along with tons of other great shareware games in an issue of Mac Gamer (I think that was what the magazine was called) when I was little. Although, my nostalgia makes me prefer the old-school artwork (which for the life of me I can't find on an image search).

Also:

Obviously.

If it was turn-based, in addition to infinity engine-like view, I'd come buckets.

1. Game is on the PC
2. Character Stats
3. Skills based off of character stats
4. Combat that relies solely on skills and character stats
5. Meaningful (and story effecting) Choice and Consequences
6. An interesting and compelling story and setting

 

[Jack]

@Mangsy
You're not Gondolin.

@Linkamus
So why did you decide for RTwP?

 

[mangsy]

@Mangsy
You're not Gondolin.

Is this taken?

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Second, while people not knowing exactly what a term means is understandable, reacting to being corrected by requesting that they should have been left ignorant, then proceeding to use terms like "gamefags"

Someone needs to brush up on his latin alphabet. Hint: g =! q.

Second, while people not knowing exactly what a term means is understandable

Some terms have several meanings, or are not very strictly defined. Like most video game ones (see: what is the definition of an rpg?). Like this one.

reacting to being corrected by requesting that they should have been left ignorant, then proceeding to use terms

It was not I who were being "corrected".

Why do we say that games like the Infinity engine games had "isometric" view? Well for starters they did

Right, and I am not contesting that. But the kind of isometric OP is talking about is also top down. Which makes being anal about it very silly indeed.

 

[Linkamus]

@Mangsy
You're not Gondolin.

@Linkamus
So why did you decide for RTwP?

I guess preference. I have nothing against pure turn based games. But I personally think real time is more immersive and I personally enjoy it more. However it will still be turn based in the sense that there will be combat rounds similar to d&d.

 

[Jack]

@Mangsy
You're not Gondolin.

Is this taken?

Not to my knowledge, thank you for changing, I appreciate it.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

@Mangsy
You're not Gondolin.

@Linkamus
So why did you decide for RTwP?

I guess preference. I have nothing against pure turn based games. But I personally think real time is more immersive and I personally enjoy it more. However it will still be turn based in the sense that there will be combat rounds similar to d&d.

When it comes to immersion, what immerses the best in combat is doing stuff like picking attack types, using specific abilties, choosing combat stances, etc. which gives a sense of personal involvement in combat. In RTwP it means hitting the pause button a lot which often gets imprecise even with autopause.

I'm working on a BG2 mod that uses one-round abilities for greater involvement and to give more combat options. While it increases immersion a lot, it also increases the trouble with pausing. That's why I think that for more immersive combat, with great sense of personal involvement, turn-based is much more comfortable and reliable.

 

[Elwro]

Sure TB is more immersive. You're not just waiting for something awesome to happen when the hidden time limit for the round passes, you choose the action and the awesomeness happens instantly!

 

[Shemar]

Some terms have several meanings, or are not very strictly defined.

No they do not. In that case they are not called terms, they are just called words, names, whatever. You having no clue of what a term means (or even what a 'term' is apparently) does not make the term have several meanings or not being strictly defined, it just makes you not knowing what the term means.

Like most video game ones (see: what is the definition of an rpg?). Like this one.

Except rpg is not a term. It is a characteristic, a genre, a group, but not a term.

Right, and I am not contesting that. But the kind of isometric OP is talking about is also top down. Which makes being anal about it very silly indeed.

Both 'isometric' and 'top-down' are terms (with very specific and defined meanings for those that actually know them) and not just words (that mean roughly what any random person thinks they do).

What the OP is talking about is called a 3/4 view and it may or may not be isometric (depending mostly on whether he will use a 2D or a 3D engine) and it is under no circumstances 'top-down'. Because top-down does not mean what you think it means, it means a view where the camera is looking directly, vertically down and that is the one and only definition of top-down.

Also RTwP: Count me out, even for free.

 

[Johannes]

If it does something better than IE games, I might.

 

[Vibalist]

Wow. I thought Codex Workshop was the place for serious discussion and uncorrupted by the GD retards, yet three people were added to my ignore list just from reading this thread.

larpingdude, fuck off and stop posting. Andhaira, don't you think that after two years you ought to do something else with your life than troll the Codex all day long?

 

[laclongquan]

Why so butthurt? Relax and enjoy the laugh, bud. While you still can.

 

[Vibalist]

Why so butthurt?

It's just too much with all these morons sometimes.

 

[larpingdude18]

larpingdude, fuck off and stop posting

what did i do to you? why are you so pissed at me?